While the debate continues about the true impact of burning fossil fuels on the climate and what the optimal policy response should be, we need to make sure we do not neglect another aspect of fossil fuel use – air pollution and the effect is has on our health. There is a growing body of research showing a significant negative impact with accompanying price tag. Let’s take a look.
Burning fossil fuels releases sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and mercury into the atmosphere. The cumulative effects of these pollutants exacerbates respiratory illness such as asthma and COPD, increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer.
A recent study confirms that these effects are not just theoretical, but can be directly measured. They looked at the rate of ED and hospital admissions for asthma and other respiratory illness for the three years prior to and after the closing of the Shenango coking plant located on an island in the Ohio River near Pittsburgh, PA. They found that after the closing there was an immediate 20% decrease in weekly respiratory ED visits, and a 41% decrease for pediatric asthma ED visits. This was following by a 4% decrease per month for the duration of the study. So there are both short and long term benefits to respiratory health.
What, then, are the health and financial costs of the global fossil fuel industry? It depends on what you count. The restrictive approach is to consider only the direct health effects of the air pollution itself. At the other end of the spectrum there are studies which also include the health effects of the resulting climate change. For example, you can include the health effects of the increase in forest fires estimated to occur due to climate change. Or the health effects of the increase in heat waves. Also, with any estimate of health costs there are different approaches. There are direct and indirect costs. The direct costs consider only healthcare expenses. Indirect costs consider things such as lost work days and also the value of lost life from premature death.
At the high end of estimates is a study by The Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, who estimated the annual cost to the US at $820 billion. This includes the direct effects of pollution and the resulting climate change. This does not include non-healthcare related costs. This does include 107,000 premature deaths each year. On average this costs each American $2,500 in increased medical bills anually. While it’s possible to quibble about the methods used and what exactly should be included, the estimate is not unreasonable when trying to account for the total societal cost. It is also likely an underestimate for the factors it’s including due to incomplete reporting.
If we consider just the direct healthcare effect of fossil fuel pollution and not the effects of climate change, one recent study finds:
“We find that air pollution in 2016 from the oil and gas sector in the US resulted in 410 000 asthma exacerbations, 2200 new cases of childhood asthma and 7500 excess deaths, with $77 billion in total health impacts.”
That is still a huge number. It is an externalized cost of the fossil fuel industry, one that we all pay. If we take a purely financial approach to this question, it’s clear that phasing out fossil fuels is a good financial investment. We could invest hundreds of billions of dollars per year in transitioning to a low carbon and low pollution energy infrastructure, and still come out ahead.
But of course this is not purely a financial situation. We are talking about the health of people, their quality of life, and avoiding premature death. We can estimate a financial worth of a human life, but not what it is worth to that person and those close to them.
